|
Massimo's
other ramblings can be found at his Skeptic
Web.
Massimo's
books:
|
|
Well, the US presidential elections are now behind us, and a lot
has been written and said about them. Nonetheless, I couldn’t resist
adding my own little commentary on what happened and, more importantly,
what we (unabashed liberal progressives) need to do in the near
and long-term future. Bear with me, I promise not to return to Bush
in this column for at least a few months...
First, let us understand what happened: barring the real possibility
of local electoral fraud, this time George W. was in fact elected
by a majority of the American public. While it is true that this
was a narrow majority (which doesn’t give him any “mandate” at all),
it is also true that Bush would have lost by a landslide in every
other Western country (except Poland, apparently). Moreover, since
the Republicans gained seats in both the House and the Senate, it
is clear that we are witnessing yet another shift of the national
political mood toward the right. Even had Kerry won, he would have
been paralyzed by a Republican-controlled Congress. So, this was
no fluke, but the continuation of a worrisome trend that we need
to recognize.
Second, and more importantly, why did this happen, despite worldwide
protests against the war in Iraq, the lies of the Bush administration
about weapons of mass destruction, and the less obvious but nonetheless
clear enough failure of accomplishing in Iraq whatever the US was
officially poised to accomplish (see the still deteriorating security
situation, for example, together with the increasingly mounting
number of American casualties)? Many reasons can be brought to bear,
but the overarching conclusion must be that, at the moment -- and
contrary to what implied by the title of Michael Moore’s latest
book -- dude, this in fact is our country! Or, as many commentators
have not tired of pointing out, two countries: the blue and the
red. We need to be careful, however, because as much as it is fun
(and largely justified) to poke fun at the bigotry, racism, and
lack of cultural development of the red states, it is also true
that there is a large number of liberals living there, not to mention
the even larger number of conservatives living in the blue states.
America is a more complex quilt than simplistic national maps may
lead us to believe, and this is a factor that may play in favor
of either side over the next few years, depending on how the cards
of the game are going to be played by the two major parties.
The reds won for a variety of reasons, of course, which include
(but are certainly not limited to) the fervent patriotism of most
Americans (my country, right or wrong), the fear of terrorism that
the Bush administration has played so well, the blatant lies that
the Republican campaign has piled up through the use of external
groups (see the “swift boat veterans” debacle) or by cunningly crafting
their own camping messages (he is a flip-flopper, my changes of
position are the result of leadership), and of course Karl Rove’s
brilliant use of the “gay marriage” issue in the battleground states.
The latter is particularly enlightening, considering that the two
candidates did not, in fact, differ on that issue: both Bush and
Kerry were against gay marriages, and both favored (grudgingly,
in the case of Bush) some sort of legal recognition of gay couples.
Americans were simply not paying attention.
The other cluster of reasons why the Republicans carried the day,
of course, is the sheer stupidity of the Democrats. How many more
lost elections do we have to go through before we understand that
-- at the moment -- there is no way that a charmless Senator from
the northeast is going to be elected? We need somebody like Bill
Clinton: from the south, with no record of “flip-flopping,” and
capable of faking a true understanding of bigots and cultural morons
at least as well as Bush does. Sorry, it ain’t pretty, but the stakes
are simply too high to take yet another chance (which means, I’m
sorry to say, no Hillary Clinton to run in 2008!).
Third, what are we going to do about it? Well, liberals have to
understand that we need both a viable short-term tactic and a winning
long-term strategy. For the short-term, as I just mentioned, Democrats
need to play up whatever winning personalities they may have among
their ranks. We need people like Clinton and Cuomo to bring back
some sanity into the White House (and to the rest of the world).
The Democratic party also needs to realize that Republicans usually
don’t play fair: they will strike below the belt whenever possible.
The best way to deal with this is to aggressively go to the American
public and point that out. Most Americans don’t like viciousness,
and they’ll see it when it is brought right up to their nose.
But more importantly we need a long-term strategy to damp some
blue in the south and midwest. This is going to take decades, not
months. The Christian right is correct: we are in the middle of
a cultural war (worldwide, not just in the US), and the stakes are
as high as civilization as we know it (would you like to live in
a theocracy? No? Then get your butt off the couch, because it will
happen to you!). Democrats need to do their part by pushing public
education, battling every judicial nomination, getting young and
poor people to realize that voting is a duty, not just a privilege.
Perhaps most importantly, liberals need to have the guts to explain
to the American public that the Christian right’s world view is
fundamentally oppressive and unfair, and that going with Pat Robertson
isn’t the only way to be religious (or endorsing George W. the only
way to be patriotic). Unjust wars, poverty, lack of education and
health care are moral issues, and they are much more important than
what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Brace yourself,
it’s going to be a long trench war, with plenty of casualties and
harsh times ahead, and -- unlike what happens in Hollywood movies
-- a happy ending isn’t assured at all. It’s up to us to make it
happen.
|
